We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
On the other hand, it could be argued that the existence of such reservations acts as a tiny disincentive to things such as dowry, female infanticide and the continuing disadvantage of women. And the more senior ranks of the profession are still heavily skewed towards men, so arguably every little now can help shift the balance for the future?
Also, anything that stops campuses being boys' clubs has to be a good thing, no?
The problem might seem less real, but if you go to rural India, it is still very very real and a raw deal for them...
Unless you have other solutions, getting rid of reservations will be 1) politically impossible, 2) unfair, effectively punishing and penalising those of a certain background.
Also consider: are you still into the law as a profession and want to make it work, or have you also considered other career options or jobs in other fields? Sometimes working somewhere else for a little while can give some good perspective, and you can return to the law after some wider-world corporate experience also.
Is the fear that it could catch on and nearly everyone will start doing it, and there'll be cultural pressure on people who don't do it, who will be perceived as uncool? Or does specifying pronouns 'trigger' some people for some reason?
Can anyone who watched summarise his argument, beyond the tweet? That India's government should not be criticised by the 'intellectuals', or that the will of the people should rule supreme in the 21st century, or that capitalism should not be bridled by notions such as human rights, welfare or reservations? Just speculating about some options here, trying to genuinely understand...
- hypocritical: sure, but name a single person alive nowadays who is not... That's not really an argument for why wokes are the worst of all the bad people, is it?
- intolerant: sure, quite possibly some of them. Though you'll often find that wokes are the most intolerant towards those who are intolerant themselves (say, against racists, or mysoginists or arguably the JK Rowlings who their opponents find are intolerant of trans women - though of course there are two sides to every story).
However, last anyone checked, JK Rowling is still alive and not in fear of her life and still the richest woman in the UK who still best-sells all her new books and other media empire, despite going out of her way to pick fights with an often mistreated minority. Doesn't sound like a very good cancelling by the wokes...
But yes, death threats are obviously not cool, and some people online are obviously assholes, but that's saying more about assholes online than about 'wokes'.
Nr is it common for wokes to make death threats. Has a woke actually ever killed anyone out of their wokeness or for woke reasons? If so, presumably far fewer than non-wokes doing school or racist shootings in the US, fundemantalists of different persuasions doing lynchings or beatings, etc.
- you may disagree, but surely arguing about whether the event was mis/perceived through a lens of privilege or not, is a valid discussion that can be had, and in any case, should be protected by freedom of speech, especially by the non-wokes who believe that freedom of speech is the highest good in the world (even if it kills us)?
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/173178
Regarding your second point, we probably can't really discuss this in an open forum without it resulting in revealing exactly the information which you accepted does not need to be published.
1. Uplifting people from marginalized castes?
2. How would you implement reform of the system if many of those who stand to lose from abolishing reservations, will probably protest very hard, making it politically very risky?
You may or may not be a fan of the wire, but the truth seems to be that the Wire made several mistakes and were allegedly duped in these stories. But then again, most publications do make mistakes at some point or other, and many don't even do a mea culpa after. Claiming that the entire site is therefore 'propaganda', even if the vast majority of their reporting still stands (and happens to be one of the few criticising the government), therefore seems disingenuous.
Take some IDIA scholars for instance, who get in under reserved categories - are you saying they would be undeserving of a place to study?
[Also, you're a troll and are not actually interested in a real debate but are either: unsuccessfully trolling Nalsarites, trolling co-called "Nalsar Joe", trolling the LI mods, or shilling for Sadhguru. You are free to prove us wrong with bona fide engagement to our post, as we bona fide engaged with you, but in the absence of such proof, future Nalsar-😭-Sadhguru posts will not be published.]
Getting more 🍿 supplies, this really is going to be hilarious how poor Elon is going to play this all out (at least as long as Bolsonaro and Trump aren't in positions of responsibility anymore to cause more genuine harm).
They might not get much visibility, but you can be sure that every generation of law students will have some fighting for social causes: it's still part of the DNA of being a lawyer (even if corporate law has been taking over).
One perhaps stupid question though: why do purely means-tested reservations not really exist in India?
1. Shitty mod moderates your trollish shit-post.
2. Shitty mod logs out and responds to your shit-post anonymously or under a different handle with a post of their own (which you feel is a shitty post).
3. Shitty mod logs in and approves their own post (which you deem to be shit).
4. You complain why shitty mod approved someone else's shit and not your own.
The current system, we believe, is far more transparent, and if you'd rather we operate in the shadows and banned you without explaining why, then please explain why.
At the end of the day, we hope you will get used to being moderated if most of what you're doing is being a dick not interested in discussion. You should also get used to people having different opinions from you and calling you out on your bullshit.
Interesting question: what of all the sudden arrests, including the poor security guards? Are they bridge engineers who could have anticipated this, or just fall guys?
Asked and answered.
Also interesting: Twitter (aka, now Elon) has accrued $100m in legal fees in its fight to get Elon to consummate the merger. Cheaper than the $1bn termination fee Elon would have had to pay, but a great outcome for the lawyers involved!
This is an interesting take on how the future will play out, which seems like a pretty realistic scenario: https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/28/23428132/elon-musk-twitter-acquisition-problems-speech-moderation
Getting ready the🍿
Ps: Also some interesting thoughts and lessons on 'moderation', also for LI.
You didn't ask about indoors, but having a good night's sleep without pollution may also help even when leaving the next day. Smart Air https://smartairfilters.com/in/en/ or Xiaomi or others make some slightly cheap air purifiers (but the bigger the better generally, if you have a bigger room).
Do research BEFORE you apply to an organisation. Find out about the decision makers and powers that be, whether they're active on social media, etc. If some of them specify pronouns or the organisation is dealing with gender justice issues or your LLM is going to be focusing on those issues in particular, or the organisation / LLM looks generally more a bit more young and 'hip', for instance, then it's certainly an option for you to do so too (though unlikely to be obligatory yet).
Most corporate jobs won't care, however, and nearly none will hold it against you if you don't (but also only a few might hold it against you).
In short, if you're thinking of putting he/him purely for virtue signalling / CV point purposes, don't. If you believe in what it stands for, then stand by it and use it.
But thanks for your comment, which has highlighted that we should moderate this kind of content more strictly, since it's progenitors are clearly trollish who indulge in ad hominem.